Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
,
:
,
2-
:
:
,
: ,
: ,
,
, ,
( 25 2, 31 2, 32
2, 33 2, 34 4, 35 3 ):
:
(. 31),
, ,
,
(. 60) ,
:
:
(. 35),
,
(. 35):
,
:
: , 1-,
,
, ,
, ,
:
, ,
(. 62 2):
,
, ,
,
,
, ,
:
:
( 66,
21):
:
, ,
(. 22),
(. 63 3):
, ,
, ,
2
, ,
, :
,
,
:
,
,
,
(. 14),
(. 3 1):
,
( . 85),
( . 82) ,
, ,
, ,
:
, 33.2:
: ,
,
( 33.2.): ,
, :
10-
,
,
: ,
,
,
3
(, . 12 1):
, :
(-849-21.08.2015-)
(.
51),
(. 190 2): ,
,
:
, ,
:
( 52 191),
: :
,
,
, ,
,
:
,
, , ,
:
,
,
,
:
,
4
phrase each other is a step back in the protection of the rights of the LGBT
community.
Another observation concerns the risk of discrimination. Such a risk occurs if
the draft is adopted in its current form, since the 1 st article of the draft
proclaims that the Armenian people recognize this Constitution . However,
since the Republic of Armenia is composed of citizens representing different
ethnic groups, the formulation should thus change into the people of the
Republic of Armenia.
Another observation concerns the right to compensation in case of wrongful
conviction (article 62 point 2). According to the draft, there can be
compensation for wrongful conviction, if the case was revisited as a result of
new circumstances which prove the wrongfulness of the conviction. However,
according to the professional opinion of the lawyers, this formulation is wrong,
since the wrongful conviction can be proved not only based on new
circumstances, but also based on circumstances which were present in the
case, however, were dismissed by the court (for various reasons), which
resulted in biased and wrongful conviction.
Another observation concerns the presumption of innocence. Unlike the current
constitution, two important clauses are omitted from the draft. These are, the
defendant shall not be obliged to prove his or her innocence and any reasonable doubt shall be
interpreted in favour of the defendant (article 66 in the draft, article 21 in the current constitution).
Yet another observation concerns the inadmissibility of evidence. The draft
suggests declaring the evidence as inadmissible when it is obtained illegally (as
in current constitution article 22) and through breach of fundamental rights
(article 63 point 3). However, according to specialists, this is a wrong
formulation, since evidence can be obtained illegally, but not necessarily
through the breach of fundamental rights, like when the examination of the
crime scene is carried out in presence of one instead of two witnesses as
required by law. This is an illegal way of obtaining evidence, however, it is not in
breach with fundamental rights.
A sign of regress rather than progress is the constitutional recognition of this or
that right by the state, however, absence of states obligation to protect it. For
example, if in the present constitution persons dignity, as the core of his/her
rights and freedoms, is respected and protected by the state (article 14), the
draft only recognizes dignity as the core of the persons rights and freedoms
(article 3 point 1).
In case of some other rights, such as right to health (draft article 85), safe
conditions of work (draft article 82), there is again regress. While they are
6